tip off

An Australian killed, to the studied indifference of his government

An Australian has been killed overseas. But the federal government is strangely incurious about it, and has nothing to say about it. Its ideology is getting in the way.

Why was Christopher Harvard of Townsville killed in Yemen in November by a American drone strike, along with a dual New Zealand-Australian citizen known as “Muslim Bin John”, and three other “militants”? Why was he the victim of an attack that left so little of him that only DNA from his family could help identify his remains?

And why do New Zealanders know more about the killing of Muslim Bin John than we do about Harvard’s death? Last week, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key spoke openly about Bin John, his terrorist links and how he had been placed under surveillance by NZ intelligence agencies before leaving the country.

The only official comment about Harvard in Australia has come from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (its response is here), which provided scant detail about his killing. Instead, we have been given anonymous backgrounding on Harvard from a “senior counter-terrorism official”, provided to The Australian’s Paul Maley and Mark Schliebs —  The Australian, commendably, has tried to follow up the story and Harvard’s background.

According to the anonymous source quoted in The Australian, Harvard and Bin John were al-Qaeda “foot soldiers” who were “collateral damage” in a strike against more senior al-Qaeda figures. “There was a suggestion they were involved in kidnapping Westerners for ransom.” Who suggested that, we’re not told.

This sort of official “response” is familiar to anyone who has followed the drone issue; it is the standard practice of the Obama administration, which has killed thousands of “combatants” with drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Until recently, there was virtually no official confirmation that drone programs even existed — and there are two: a military one and a CIA one, both controlled by the White House — let alone that individual strikes were carried out. The only information provided to the media about United States drone strikes was from anonymous officials (the kind of official leakers who never get pursued or punished for revealing national security information) explaining how valuable they were at crippling terrorism networks and killing al-Qaeda and Taliban “combatants”.

The problem is, it later emerged that the Obama administration defined “combatants” as any male 18 to 65 years old killed in a drone strike, regardless of who they were or what they were doing. Drone strikes could thus be “successful” even if they only killed civilians. Even Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was initially described as one of several “militants” after the drone strike that killed him in Yemen in 2009. Al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old boy from Denver, Colorado, who was in Yemen looking for his American father, the al-Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been killed in a drone strike two weeks earlier. No “militants” of any kind were present when Abdulrahman and several young friends were blown up in an outdoor cafe. The man who ordered the drone strike that killed the boy, former White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan, has never been investigated or prosecuted for his role in the killing. Instead, President Barack Obama promoted him to CIA director.

The Australian government is strangely uninterested in the killing of one of its citizens …”

So experience suggests it pays to be highly sceptical of what anonymous officials say about drone strike victims. And Harvard’s family disputes the account from the unnamed official — as Schliebs related, they say Harvard went to Yemen to teach English and that conversion to Islam had helped him get his life together. Separately, the Townsville Bulletin speculated Harvard might have been radicalised at a mosque in Christchurch, NZ, although there is no known connection with Bin John.

Criticism of the Obama administration’s indiscriminate use of drones and the civilian death toll they inflicted eventually became too much, especially when respected figures like former Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal warned they could prove counter-productive because of the radicalising effect they had on civilian target communities. In May last year, Obama revealed he has established a new set of guidelines for using drones. The actual guidelines remain classified, but the White House released some details, including requirements of “near-certainty” that the target is present, the “near-certainty” that civilians will not be harmed, and that:

… the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force.”

Were the three al-Qaeda militants targeted in the attack that killed Harvard and Bin John posing a “continuing, imminent threat to US persons” in the remote province of Hadhramaut, where the strike took place? If not, it was in breach of the rules Obama himself laid down. We know of at least one other strike that was in breach of these new rules —  a strike in Yemen in December that killed 12 people and injured 15 others when drones targeted a wedding procession. The Yemeni government later paid compensation to the families of the killed and injured. Several civilians have also been killed in a wave of drone strikes in Yemen over the last few days.

What we do know, via Key, is that Bin John had been known to NZ intelligence services before he’d left New Zealand, that he was the subject of a warrant by NZ agencies and, Key says, had links to terrorist organisations. Unlike his Australian counterpart, or the Obama administration, Key was prepared to speak officially about individual drone strikes that killed one of his citizens.

Perhaps Harvard was indeed a “combatant”; perhaps he indeed was involved in kidnapping westerners. Certainly he was profoundly foolish to be where he was when he was. But maybe he was in Yemen teaching English. We don’t know, and we’ll never know. He’ll get no trial, no opportunity to defend himself, not even the half-baked “opportunity” terrorism suspects get under Australia’s draconian anti-terror laws and a Federal Police force with a history of fabricating evidence. The Australian government is strangely uninterested in the killing of one of its citizens, having apparently asked no questions of the Americans about what happened or whether the strike that killed him complied with the US’ own rules.

And rather than discuss it publicly, it prefers to hide behind anonymous security bureaucrats.

20
  • 1
    T2
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    I see that you said the government was “uninterested” in Harvard, which, of course, is very different from Crikey’s headline which said it was “disinterested”.

  • 2
    mikeb
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Let’s not get too cute here. Christopher Harvard was not in Yemen as an innocent bystander. We all know that even though no “fair” trial has taken place. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

  • 3
    Hugo Armstrong
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Could not agree more! Crikey subs, PLEASE look up disinterested and uninterested. Our Government may well be uninterested, but disinterested they are NOT!

  • 4
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    One day the other side will also have drones and target suspected American war mongers and drone operators, what then?

  • 5
    Mark out West
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    @ T2 & Hugo

    Twats

  • 6
    Mark out West
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    @ Bill

    +100

    When would it be okay for Americans to bomb Australians like they do elsewhere??

  • 7
    Phillip Monk
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    @ mikeb

    True, but the article is about the government’s behaviour, not Harvard’s. We should be holding our government to a higher standard of accountability than it has displayed so far on this matter.

  • 8
    David Hand
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    It has become very fashionable to criticise our government for keeping secrets that it believes are in the country’s interests. Snowden and Assange have become folk heroes for leaking highly sensitive information that has aided people who wish us harm.

    In the pages of Crikey, the US government has become the enemy. Christopher Harvard has become “an English teacher”. The AFP “fabricates evidence”. The government must be wrong not to talk because John Key has public (with the dang awkward statement that the Kiwi was indeed part of Al Quaeda). The government is guilty because it won’t provide us with information it has.

    You guys have been watching too many “Evil military-industrial corporation” movies.

    Who do you think is protecting you from a bomb going off at Town Hall Station?

  • 9
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Can we start a porgrom on the meme, put about by the one-eyed, and one handed in David’s case,Snowden and Assange have become folk heroes for leaking highly sensitive information that has aided people who wish us harm..
    Untrue, not then, or now. Ever.
    As to his “raping sister” question, those with nowt to hide got nowt to fear. And dulce decorum..,/I> the old, vile, lie.

  • 10
    dcparker
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    I am not a defender of our Government, and it certainly seems that the NZ government has provided its public with more information, which has only shown that the New Zealander concerned chose to go to a combat zone for a particular military, quasi-military or military support purpose. It seems likely that the Australian was the same. Whilst I think the his government should be equally open as that of his co-combatant, it was his choice to embroil himself in a war. The consequences may be unfortunate, but it was ever thus.

  • 11
    Sally Baker
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    You’re at your best Bernard, great article.

    All very well David Hand, but Al Quaeda is a figment of the your imagination and the cIa’s invention. You need to get with the times and stop parroting what you read in the MSM.

    The use of drones and the slaughter of the innocent is an abomination. To who and why the O-ama administration does this is the subject of international political maneuvering and agendas with the truth a constant casualty and these are not even war crimes. It’s outright murder.

  • 12
    Trevor Barker
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    @David Hand

    What would you do David if your friends and family were collateral damage from a drone strike on a nominated target? The author of this article infers correctly that our own govt is disinterested/uninterested due to it’s acquiesce to US foreign policy. Itself a disgrace.

  • 13
    Patrick Gower
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    See how the New Zealand Government have more in details, while the Australian Government remains quiet. It’s because of the ASIO Act of 2005. Everything here is based on fictitious intel by the American Government. How did they know of these people on the ground, how did they know of these DNA samples.
    Murder is still Murder, but today called it’s Justified Drones Op! Oh didn’t see your Wedding Party there, just a Hellfire missile hole now!

  • 14
    Darrel Baldock
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    ” Who do you think is protecting you from a bomb going off at Town Hall Station?”

    hahahaha certainly not the government you idiot. They probably —  —  —  —  —  —  — .

  • 15
    Ross Smith
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    I agree Darrel, they probably —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — in the first place.

  • 16
    Liamj
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    If Australian ‘senior counter-terrorism official(s)’ are just going to parrot what the yanks tell them (sweet f.all), we should sack them and save the wages. I appreciate that foriegn corps like to have local frontmen but surely they can pay their own way, as per Centre for Independant Studies, Lowy Institute etc.

  • 17
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    I presume Australian security officials were briefed secretly by US security officials. In which case it would be more correct to state that Australia has shown no public interest in Harvard’s fate.

  • 18
    rhwombat
    Posted Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    David Hand: Funny that you should mention the (US?) government is protecting us from a bomb going off at Town Hall Station. The Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978 killed 2 garbos and a policeman, when a device planted in a garbage bin went off in the garbage compactor. Though blamed on Ananda Marga, it was almost certainly a covert ASIO operation that misfired. Cui bono?

  • 19
    rhonaj
    Posted Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    I think Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.

  • 20
    Desmond Hanlon
    Posted Wednesday, 23 April 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    See The Monthly, April, page 11, Kim McGrath, The Stitch-up, 40 years of seeking to advance a corporate commercial interest when the law was on the the side of the poorest country in the world. The Australian Government’s support for its nationals is always subject to “His Masters Voice” .

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...